Re Lavigne and Ontario Public Service Employees Union: public administration and remedial decree litigation under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Article Abstract:
Analysts studying the political impact of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms have tended to focus on the role of the Supreme Court of Canada and on the formulation of remedies for Charter violations under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 (judicial nullification) and s. 24(2) of the Charter (exclusion of evidence). Without denying the importance of the Supreme Court, or the impact of nullification and exclusion of evidence, it is important to recognize that s. 24(1) of the Charter provides a remedial alternative whose implementation is likely to occur primarily within lower courts, and whose potential policy consequences are vast. What makes s. 24(1) so potentially important is that it provides courts the opportunity to shape and administer social policy directly through positive and prospective remedies. This article offers a preliminary exploration of this phenomenon by utilizing a model of remedial decree litigation developed in the United States to examine the most interesting s. 24(1) case yet considered by the lower courts: Re Lavigne and Ontario Public Service Employees Union. The aim of the article is to explore the extent to which Canadian courts are restructuring their decision-making processes to undertake the institutional obligations imposed on them by remedial decree litigation under the Charter. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)
Publication Name: Canadian Public Administration
Subject: Government
ISSN: 0008-4840
Year: 1991
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Moonlighting and mobility
Article Abstract:
Moonlighting, individuals taking on second jobs to supplement their income, and post-employment mobility, individuals taking a subsequent job after ending a period of employment, provide a moral and ethical dilemma for both public and private-sector employers. Many employers seek to restrict the work that employees can take on after hours to protect worker productivity and limit the possibility that the employees may work for a competing firm. The trend in the area of restricting moonlighting is toward specific rather than blanket restrictions. Many employers seek to limit the types of employers an ex-employee can work for to protect trade secrets. Employers must demonstrate to the courts that any effort to restrict a former employee is based on reasonable grounds.
Publication Name: Canadian Public Administration
Subject: Government
ISSN: 0008-4840
Year: 1991
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Reward structures in public good experiments. Discrete public goods under threshold uncertainty. After you - endogenous sequencing in voluntary contribution games
- Abstracts: A note on the optimum income tax. Information and IRA participation: the influence of tax preparers. Redistribution when avoidance behavior is heterogenous
- Abstracts: The Question of Quangos: Quasi Public Service Agencies in British Columbia. Employment equity: a sound business strategy for the 1990s
- Abstracts: The racial housing price differential and racially transitional neighborhoods. Land values and housing rents in urban Japan
- Abstracts: Considerations on centralization and decentralization. Fear and ferment: public sector management today